Author:
Eckstein Lisa,Garrett Jeremy R.,Berkman Benjamin E.
Abstract
Over the past decade, there has been an extensive debate about whether researchers have an obligation to disclose genetic research findings, including primary and secondary findings. There appears to be an emerging (but disputed) view that researchers have some obligation to disclose some genetic findings to some research participants. The contours of this obligation, however, remain unclear.As this paper will explore, much of this confusion is definitional or conceptual in nature. The extent of a researcher's obligation to return secondary and other research findings is often limited by reference to terms and concepts like “incidental,” “analytic validity,” “clinical validity,” “clinical relevance,” “clinical utility,” “clinical significance,” “actionability,” and “desirability.” These terms are used in different ways by different writers to describe obligations in different sorts of cases.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Health Policy,General Medicine,Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Reference122 articles.
1. 58. See, e.g., Dressler, Juengst, , supra note 43; Bredenoord, et al., supra note 1.
2. Genomics really gets personal: How exome and whole genome sequencing challenge the ethical framework of human genetics research
3. Offering Individual Genetic Research Results: Context Matters
4. Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Analysis and Recommendations
5. 40. See Dressler, et al., supra note 3, at 219.
Cited by
32 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献